: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.

Huge social liberal contrary to his stances.Tried to cover up a scandal.Created the "surge" and style of war we are fighting today.

America still had faith in politicians in those days. He changed things. Watergate was the least of everything. The Vietnamization was a huge flaw (to me). The dishonesty he had on his "conservative" views, (I would rather him just tell the truth and say he is more socially liberal when it came to programs, then lie) I have a lot of things I did not like about his Presidency.

I think it was brave of him to make nice with China and Russia; after his long fight and hatred toward communism during his Alger Hiss days.

Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.

I disagree. He was better then the alternative of Huey P Long or Dr. Townsend.

Fairly conservative, and criticized for being to conservative by most democrats in his day.I know you will argue that he hurt us in the great depression, but many scholars could argue the contrary. He is credited for ending the Great Depression with World War II .

I disagree. He was better then the alternative of Huey P Long or Dr. Townsend.

Fairly conservative, and criticized for being to conservative by most democrats in his day.

In the same way Clinton is fairly conservative to Obama, and Obama is fairly conservative to Marx...

Your right. That is why you would put Clinton over Obama, and Obama over Marx, if he would have ever been President of The U.S.The statement still stands that i still disagree with him being the worst.

I know you will argue that he hurt us in the great depression, but many scholars could argue the contrary. He is credited for ending the Great Depression with World War II .

Those scholars would be wrong.

In your opinion.In their opinion, they are right.The majority of society is on their side, which validates their theory to a small extent.I am not saying that "The majority of society" is super educated, or even right; but I still think it is all opinion.

You feel your opinion is superior, and that is your right.You even have the right to criticizes them with valid empirical analysis, but that does not make you more right.They obviously have numerous amounts of analysis favoring their opinions, and are validated by an astronomical number of people.

I disagree. He was better then the alternative of Huey P Long or Dr. Townsend.

Fairly conservative, and criticized for being to conservative by most democrats in his day.

In the same way Clinton is fairly conservative to Obama, and Obama is fairly conservative to Marx...

Your right. That is why you would put Clinton over Obama, and Obama over Marx, if he would have ever been President of The U.S.The statement still stands that i still disagree with him being the worst.

I know you will argue that he hurt us in the great depression, but many scholars could argue the contrary. He is credited for ending the Great Depression with World War II .

Those scholars would be wrong.

In your opinion.In their opinion, they are right.The majority of society is on their side, which validates their theory to a small extent.

No it doesn't. The majority of people have believed things that are totally contrary to the truth at various times in history. That the majority holds an opinion does not in any way validate that opinion.

I am not saying that "The majority of society" is super educated, or even right; but I still think it is all opinion.

You feel your opinion is superior, and that is your right.You even have the right to criticizes them with valid empirical analysis, but that does not make you more right.

Empirical analysis can only take you so far in economics. It's meaningless without a theory to back it up. There are simply too many variables to say that policy X helped/hurt the economy without using reasoning and ceteris paribus to determine that policy's effect on the outcome. Minimum wage laws can only raise the unemployment level higher than it otherwise would have been, but this doesn't imply that adopting minimum wage laws will lead to higher unemployment. It could be a fairly insignificant raise in the minimum wage. There could be other factors that more strongly affect the labor market that help to reduce unemployment. So saying the minimum wage raises unemployment is only a ceteris paribus statement.

They obviously have numerous amounts of analysis favoring their opinions, and are validated by an astronomical number of people.

Having a majority of people believe something doesn't make it valid. If anything, what matters is the opinion of economists, and they are fairly split on the issue. There are many who say FDR helped, and at least as many who say he hurt. Fundamentally it boils down to not whether government helped or hurt during this one incident, but whether government helps or hurts in general. Government spending can't "work" in one instance and then not "work" in another instance (so long as the 2 instances have certain commonalities, like being in a recession) ... and what works depends on your ideal end state, i.e. GDP, unemployment, private investment, etc. So if GDP goes up, but private investment and consumption go down, are we better off? Some economists don't even ask that question.

I disagree. He was better then the alternative of Huey P Long or Dr. Townsend.

Irrelevant. George W. Bush was better than the American Nazi Party alternative, but he was still terrible.

Fairly conservative, and criticized for being to conservative by most democrats in his day.

Conservative on what issues?

I know you will argue that he hurt us in the great depression, but many scholars could argue the contrary. He is credited for ending the Great Depression with World War II .

Then you should credit Japan for bombing us if you're going to credit anyone. That's like fixing a broken finger by sawing off your entire arm.

"War prosperity is like the prosperity that an earthquake or a plague brings. The earthquake means good business for construction workers, and cholera improves the business of physicians, pharmacists, and undertakers; but no one has for that reason yet sought to celebrate earthquakes and cholera as stimulators of the productive forces in the general interest." - Ludwig von Mises.

At 12/16/2010 9:11:47 AM, comoncents wrote:I know you will argue that he hurt us in the great depression, but many scholars could argue the contrary. He is credited for ending the Great Depression with World War II .

Those scholars would be wrong.

In your opinion.In their opinion, they are right.The majority of society is on their side, which validates their theory to a small extent.

Ad verecundiam; ad populum. It does nothing to validate their theory. 51% of Americans don't believe in evolution; that doesn't make them any less stupid.

I am not saying that "The majority of society" is super educated, or even right; but I still think it is all opinion.

You feel your opinion is superior, and that is your right.You even have the right to criticizes them with valid empirical analysis, but that does not make you more right.They obviously have numerous amounts of analysis favoring their opinions, and are validated by an astronomical number of people.

You have your opinions.They have theirs.

I think 2+2=5, but that's just my opinion. You have your opinion and I have mine.

At 12/16/2010 9:11:47 AM, comoncents wrote:I know you will argue that he hurt us in the great depression, but many scholars could argue the contrary. He is credited for ending the Great Depression with World War II .

Those scholars would be wrong.

In your opinion.In their opinion, they are right.The majority of society is on their side, which validates their theory to a small extent.

Ad verecundiam; ad populum. It does nothing to validate their theory. 51% of Americans don't believe in evolution; that doesn't make them any less stupid.

I am not saying that "The majority of society" is super educated, or even right; but I still think it is all opinion.

You feel your opinion is superior, and that is your right.You even have the right to criticizes them with valid empirical analysis, but that does not make you more right.They obviously have numerous amounts of analysis favoring their opinions, and are validated by an astronomical number of people.

You have your opinions.They have theirs.

I think 2+2=5, but that's just my opinion. You have your opinion and I have mine.

The man has a point

You are reading a very cool and original signature that makes you think I am chill person to hang with.

At 12/16/2010 9:11:47 AM, comoncents wrote:I know you will argue that he hurt us in the great depression, but many scholars could argue the contrary. He is credited for ending the Great Depression with World War II .

Those scholars would be wrong.

In your opinion.In their opinion, they are right.The majority of society is on their side, which validates their theory to a small extent.

Ad verecundiam; ad populum. It does nothing to validate their theory. 51% of Americans don't believe in evolution; that doesn't make them any less stupid.

I am not saying that "The majority of society" is super educated, or even right; but I still think it is all opinion.

You feel your opinion is superior, and that is your right.You even have the right to criticizes them with valid empirical analysis, but that does not make you more right.They obviously have numerous amounts of analysis favoring their opinions, and are validated by an astronomical number of people.

You have your opinions.They have theirs.

I think 2+2=5, but that's just my opinion. You have your opinion and I have mine.

The man has a point

The equation 2+2=5 would better be equated with FDR causing the depression, or worsening it.And if 2+2=5 is an opinion, it still is just that, "an opinion." If he had viable facts to back it up it would make for an even bigger issue, and be taught in schools across America. If you read my entire post you will understand. It is difficult to explain logic to someone who relies on false logic to explain his arguments.

The world believes that 2+2=4, also that FDR helped us out of the depression.Fewer believe that 2+2=5, also that FDR caused us to dip further into the depression without helping us at all.

His opinion is his opinion.

And if he backs it up with facts, then he has a valid argument, but it is still hearsay because if he could prove it, without a shadow of a doubt, society would have grasped his theory at some point and run with it.

A lot of people do think FDR hurt, not inline with libertarian standards, but by not inflating the money supply.

Still, it does not matter. Opinion is opinion. You have your and I have mine. I don't think FDR was a bad of a president compared to many others. I Most people here dislike him b/c they think he hurt us during the great depression, and has continue to hurt us with his "programs." His programs are small compared to JFK, Johnson, and Nixon whom expanded and add things greatly to social programs.

At 12/16/2010 5:07:18 PM, comoncents wrote:The equation 2+2=5 would better be equated with FDR causing the depression, or worsening it.And if 2+2=5 is an opinion, it still is just that, "an opinion." If he had viable facts to back it up it would make for an even bigger issue, and be taught in schools across America.

2+2=5 isn't supported by verifiable facts; it's an a priori proposition, like the principles of economics.

If you read my entire post you will understand. It is difficult to explain logic to someone who relies on false logic to explain his arguments.

Lol, you wouldn't know logic if it crawled up your rear and brought you to orgasm though prostate stimulation, as evidenced by the three blatant fallacies you committed.

The world believes that 2+2=4, also that FDR helped us out of the depression.Fewer believe that 2+2=5, also that FDR caused us to dip further into the depression without helping us at all.

Again, irrelevant. Ad populum; ad verecundiam.

His opinion is his opinion.

Cool story, bro.

And if he backs it up with facts, then he has a valid argument, but it is still hearsay because if he could prove it, without a shadow of a doubt, society would have grasped his theory at some point and run with it.

Now we're getting somewhere. Maybe you would like to provide some of those facts? Because so far all we getting is "X is an authority on Y; X believes Z about Y; therefore Z is true."

A lot of people do think FDR hurt, not inline with libertarian standards, but by not inflating the money supply.

I wasn't aware FDR was Chairman of the Fed.

Still, it does not matter. Opinion is opinion. You have your and I have mine. I don't think FDR was a bad of a president compared to many others. I Most people here dislike him b/c they think he hurt us during the great depression, and has continue to hurt us with his "programs." His programs are small compared to JFK, Johnson, and Nixon whom expanded and add things greatly to social programs.

Again, you are completely missing the point. If I told you "I think the earth is flat. Still, it does not matter. Opinion is opinion. You have your (sic) and I have mine," you would rightly call me a lunatic. Instead of making unsubstantiated claims and hiding behind that "opinion is opinion" bullsh*t, why don't you debate me on the merits of the Roosevelt presidency?